Court says judges must examine the origins of a relationship and whether the woman’s consent was freely given
LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday laid down important legal principles for lower courts trying cases of disputed love marriages, ruling that a registered nikahnama or even a previous petition of harassment by a woman cannot, by themselves, conclusively establish a valid marriage when allegations of kidnapping, coercion or forced marriage are raised.
The court held that judges must go beyond documentary evidence and determine whether the woman’s consent was free, voluntary and completely free of coercion. It ordered trial courts to examine how the alleged relationship originated, whether the parties actually knew each other, and whether the circumstances supported a claim of common-law marriage.
The LHC further ruled that when the parties are strangers from different localities, the courts have a legal obligation to investigate the genesis of the alleged romantic relationship before accepting a declaration of common-law marriage.
Justice Anwaar Hussain of the Bahawalpur Bench of the LHC delivered the ruling while dismissing a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Jamil and upholding an appellate court’s judgment declaring the disputed marriage invalid after determining that it had not been proven to be the result of the woman’s free and voluntary consent.
The case arose from a lawsuit takzeeb-e-nikah (marriage boasting) filed by a woman, who claimed that she had been kidnapped and forced into marriage against her will.
Jamil, however, maintained that the parties had developed a consensual relationship, voluntarily eloped and entered into a love marriage. He also filed a claim for restitution of conjugal rights, and both matters were heard together.
Also read: Lahore court grants five-day physical remand to four people in alleged case of assault on foreign women
On December 7, 2023, the trial court dismissed the woman’s suit after holding that the marriage had been established by filing a registered nikahnama. He also observed that the parties belonged to the same caste and had previously known each other, treating the dispute as a dispute over the dissolution of the marriage and not the validity of the marriage itself.
However, the appeals court revoked that decision on August 27, 2025, considering that it had not been proven that the alleged marriage was the result of the woman’s free and voluntary consent, and ruled on her lawsuit.
Before the LHC, Jamil’s lawyer argued that the recorded nikahnama and the woman’s earlier harassment petition sufficiently established the marriage and sought restoration of the trial court’s ruling.
The defendant’s counsel argued that the central issue was not the performance of the nikahnama, but whether the woman had freely consented to the marriage. She maintained that her family had initiated criminal proceedings and that she subsequently recorded a statement under Article 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that she had been abducted and forcibly married.
In framing the legal question, the LHC observed that the main issue was the appropriate judicial approach to evaluate the evidence in cases where one party relied on an alleged love marriage while the other alleged kidnapping, coercion or forced marriage.
The judgment held that while documentary evidence, including a registered nikahnama or a harassment petition, may initially lend credence to a matrimonial claim, courts cannot limit their investigation to such documents when the very basis of marriage is questioned for lack of free consent. Instead, judges must examine the entire chain of surrounding circumstances before and after the alleged nikah.
Applying that principle, the court noted that although the petitioner consistently asserted that the parties had shared a consensual relationship prior to the marriage, the record did not contain compelling evidence explaining how that relationship began or developed.
The ruling noted that the parties were not family members, neighbors, companions or colleagues, nor did they belong to the same social circle. They lived in different locations, separated by more than 100 kilometers, so the mere fact of belonging to the same caste had no legal importance.
Read more: SC restores the inheritance of heirs to ancestral property after 71 years, imposes the burden of proof of oral donation on beneficiaries
The court held that when the parties are complete strangers, it is essential to determine how the alleged relationship arose and how it ultimately developed into a decision to marry against the wishes of the woman’s family.
While clarifying that the law does not require parties to present call logs, social media conversations, photographs or other electronic evidence to prove a relationship, the court held that the complete absence of any explanation of the genesis of the relationship substantially weakens a claim for common-law love marriage.
The LHC also gave importance to the woman’s conduct after the alleged marriage. He noted that, while his previous claim of harassment was relevant evidence, it could not be considered conclusive in isolation.
Her probative value had to be assessed alongside subsequent developments, including recovery proceedings initiated by her family, criminal cases registered after her disappearance and her statement under Article 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which she claimed that she had been abducted and forced into marriage.
The court further clarified that when a woman claims that a valid marriage never came to be because her consent was not free and voluntary, a lawsuit can be filed for takzeeb-e-nikah It should not normally become a marriage dissolution procedure.
Concluding that the appeals court had properly appreciated the evidence and had not committed any misinterpretation, misreading, illegality or jurisdictional error, the LHC dismissed the constitutional petition and affirmed the appeals court’s decree.
